MMORPG.com Discussion Forums

All Posts by Morcotulcon

Well, I only played the beta a bit and then bought the game just to play it the first month.

In my opinion, this game and Guild Wars 2 have simillar problems, and Carbine clearly didn't learned their lesson with ArenaNet's mistakes.

The first of them is, just like you say in your post, trying to have all kinds of gamers instead of focusing on one or two types of gamers. That's the worst mistake ever when releasing a new product in most situations and it seems that, at least to me, many mmorpg develloppers don't know how to make the best out of their "unique products".

When you create a product, you have to make sure THAT PRODUCT satisfies a certain necessity in consumers. Unfortunatelly today the consumer is much more self-oriented and it evolves much faster then companies capacity to adapt, thanks to the digital era we are now. This means that, if you try to focus in too many types of consumer, your product will be obsolete in a flash because not even one of those types will be entirely satisfied with it and they will go the the next big thing in a heart beat.

Todays' mmorpgs' devellopers don't show signs of getting this, which is wierd since the gaming industry is one of the first industries to be ready for this change in consumer behaviours.

GW2 had this same issue and it's still trying to fix all their mistakes for the past 2 years, BUT is still adapting too slow and that might get them sooner or later if they aren't carefull enough. Maybe that's the reason why they focused on getting a lot of new players instead of getting the old players back, starting with a new "wave" of consumers with a "new beguinning". But I guess the time wasn't the right one for that either.

Carbine is having the same problem. If they don't adapt fast enough, they might end up in a worse situation then GW2 and a lot faster too.

The other big problem I see in both games is the lack of orientation. What is the BIG MISSION? What is their Vision? What is their philosophy as a company? These would describe what kind of consumer they want. The sad thing about this is, consumers think they don't know what they want... and so the real question is: Do they know what are and what they want? Or are they just here to create a game a hope it will work because "it seems logic"? Since we consumers don't know what they are looking for, we go after all the hype they put in their products, but after a while we see there's something lacking in a game for me, and for my friend (who is different than me), and for almost everyone because they promised things and never really delivered those things. If the consumer feels he is beeing fooled around, that's the company fault for not beeing specific enough because, today, the consumer has a lot more products to chose from and the company is the one that gets burned.

This is because it's a type of player that is common nowadays and it's the result of many negative things that happen to them in many different ways. It's common because many of us know how it feels like and, unfortunatelly, not many of us moved on.

Yes, it is a Fase, in a player's behaviour as a player and a person when the player links his emotions to gaming in a way so strong that you turn into all types of player that have been mentioned in this post.

Fanboys, Haters, Trolls, whatever type of players they are it usually is the result of them never finding a way to cross over their negative emotions in life and understanding that Gaming is not really their main hobby, but it is their only hobby because they want it to be, it is their safe zone and no one can really hurt them more than they hurt others or even themselves.

This type of player has never gone through a rupture point where they could finally live their life in peace with gaming, a type of player that I call the "Free in Gaming" which never gets upset by what happens in their games but always goes the extra length to have fun and help others have fun in their games.

I'm happy to say that I was the former for some time but I had the rupture point at some point in my life and I'm happy to be the later now.

Unfortunatelly I still see many of my friends still "stuck in Gaming" (whether or not they work or study) and we can clearly see when they show the ammount of significance they give to every other player behaviour and to every match/situation they have when playing games. It makes their decisions become worst and worst untill they end up blaming everyone else except for themselves and, the worst part, they never put themselves on the shoes of other players and are unable to forgive them for their mistakes.

I've been looking at Wildstar since it was announced and I would like to know more about it before buying it. I couldn't play the Betas and so would like to know what are the opinions of those who played the Betas.

Instead of saying the Pros and Cons that you have, how about comparing each feature of the game (pros and cons) with the same/simillar features from 2 of your favourite MMORPGs untill now? That way players like me could really understand what the game is about.

I still have 3 months ahead but this might help a lot of other players in the same situation as me.

Last request is for you to don't assume anything, just say what is your opinion, respect the opinion of other players and stay focused on the topic.

You can't compare an instanced match with 2 teams with a set number of players and a definitive winner and loser to persistent 3 Way faction pvp. Warplots are basically 40v40 Mobas, except with gear discrepancies.

Well, you can't compare a 5x5 match and a 40x40 match in the sense that responsibilities, communication and skill combinations are not even close to each other besides the basics. It's like having a sport with 5 players and compare it to simillar sport with 40 players.

In team with 5 players, each one of those 5 has to be extremelly good at their role, with their skills and the communication between them has to be clean and simple. They are very well aware of each others skills and their coordination is near perfection.

In a team with 40 players, most of those players don't need to be as good as the best in their roles, their skills can be average and the communication is not between them but one is giving the orders and others following, because is very difficult to keep it clean and simple since there are so many of them and that is the ONLY WAY of good communication. You don't know what the others are really capable of and the coordination is very messy.

When you look at a game, instead of thinking how it works, you should think about how to play it.

Warplots are more simillar technically to sPVP matches because they are instanced maps with a 2-way battles where there are definitive winners, but the main problems that Warplots might have are the same main problems that WvW has: big epic battles where the quality of a Team players might not be as good but they still win against stronger teams because they knew exactly how to play the game.

You are afraid they don't get enough people to play Warplots. I'll tell you that, like in WvW, they will have those numbers! What you should be afraid of is how much those numbers and the lack of organization and communication in each team will influence results.

I actually like this very much but, just like everyone in here, I think this will have it's own flaws discovored after a while.

The question here is: how will the flaws of this kind of game change the way people will play it?

@Nihilist, I will agree with you, but I think you should only relate GW2 sPVP to Wildstar Battlgrounds and Arenas. Because Warplots are probably more related to GW2 WvW than you think.

Why WvW and not sPVP? Big epic battles where an entire guild can play together (and not just a part of it) and that's what people like in many games with big scale PVP features (something that GW2 WvW can't offer in the same terms as other games, sadly).

Guilds want epic Guild vs Guild battles and one of the biggest GW2 flaws was not having them (and when they try to go with their Guilds to WvW, the fun is there untill they find themselves fighting against 60+ blobs, which is impossible to counter due to GW2 5-man skill cap and it ends with endless trains fighting and dieing like ducklings following their mother). In Wildstar they have this possibility. Smaller map, smaller numbers, all the people playing together instead of wandering around.

The problem here is about the speed of the decisions they have to make as a 40 player group. In GW2, following the commander you need +80% of your group on the same TS / Ventrillo in order to make things be successfull, unless you're a scout, because it's way too damn fast when having big fights. If they make the Warplots possible to play without the need to have TS / Ventrillo in order to be remotelly sucessfull, that would be awesome. If it's not then unless you belong to a Guild you will lose msot of the times due to having too much people not following your instructions (and you don't have the time to write them in chat).

a) the guilds are always moving servers when their server starts losing or there are too many dramas related to other issues (some of them I'm saying below).

b) many players and guilds are always jumping to the high tier servers, the ones that have bigger fights (with more loot bags) and usually win their matchups, which cause too much queue in prime time (main EU servers problem) and too many players and guilds who don't care about the community inside the server they went to.

c) some servers end up with very few people in WvW, beeing beated down by more populated servers. Other servers end up with too much people and queues that take 30 mins to 2 or 3 hours to get in WvW in prime-time.

2- Day/Night coverage, the concept might seem good on paper, but it's total bs on gameplay, specially in EU servers because:

a) the server that has more players in night and morning hours wins, which means that only servers who have people that don't sleep or are in other another continent with different timezone, like America, will win against all other servers.

b) servers who have less people outside of prime-time will always lose, specially if they lack more people in nights and mornings than the other 2 servers.

c) most players will eventually leave the servers that have less coverage, because they want more epiuc fights (and more loot bags), and go to the most populated servers.

d) When you have no one to fight against, it's boring as sh*t because you end up killing doors and upgrading stuff, which isn't really PVP, it's PVD (Player Vs Doors) and PVE (against guards, mercenaries, etc.)

3- Completelly unbalance, which is what Arena-Net wants (they confirmed it some times already):

Example - A guild raid can be really strong, but you won't find many guilds with 45+ every night and usually they will lose against blobs ( 60+ zergs, because there are so many things going on that most players get too much lag and can't use most of their skills at the right time).

Problems with sPVP:

1- Limited builds and lack in variety of which roles/classes to take.

2- Arena-Net keeps making "Capture the Points" objective maps, which is boring and stupid because most PVP players like to kill and do other stuff. Where is "king of the Hill"? and "Deathmatches"? and "Duels!"?

I agree with the OP, but also with some of the things other people say in this thread.

I'm not very active in this site as I used to, but reading this post I felt the need to give my opinion.

Although I totally agree with the problem of giving too many rewards to players, and although I also agree that MMOs today are more of a Game and less then a Virtual World, I think MMORPGs were stale for so long that all the changes right now are the main reasons why players feel so "lost" in the genre. They don't know what MMORPG's stand for anymore, at least in terms of what to expect in their gameplay experience.

The genre is growing steadily with much more players than it had before, in many more games than before, but along with this there are more and more games looking to give motivational and rewarding experiences, because those are the ones that attract the new players each day - yes, I said "day", because games are now on a competitive level where each day might represent the gain and loss of players to the direct competition, and if only 1 day can be a problem to the game itself with a downtime service, a week or a month might be the end of the success of many goals they devs had in mind by giving the wrong updates.

The problem with this is, with so many motivational experiences and rewards, people start getting tired of them and don't know what to do with them all. Many of those rewards become things with no value and the real valuable ones are only possible if you are "a true hardcore" (aka have no life or spend real money) or if you have A LOT OF LUCK.

They also try to give many experiences in terms of different gameplay, but then they create even more rewards and motivational experiences that in less then a month will become "meh" in the middle of so many things to do and get.

In the end, there are so many MMOs creating so many features while looking for the "special one" that motivates all their player base, that all of them end up having the same things over and over again with different skins and with an excessive amount of rewards with no value at all.

The Virtual Worlds the OP talked about is something many MMORPGs are trying to do right now, but it just gets past players when they see the giant list of things to do and get. With so many features, missions, rewards, etc., the players forget all about the Virtual World and start thinking about the Game - to have fun and become good player - and after a while they forget about the Game and start to become focused in best rewards and in beeing the best. When that happens, the MMO is not fun anymore, it's just a "job" (or a filler) untill the next MMO comes again.

And then, the cycle repeats itself.

But It seems we are getting somewhere. To me, it seems each new game is trying to get both of those concepts, a Virtual World and a Game, and with this we might see a final change in the genre in terms of definition.

I don't know if the gerne should be separated in 2 or 3 genres, but to me it seems games will get to a place where the games are finally labelled in the correct genre again, like they were before as MMORPGs.

As a GW2 player since Betas and a user of this website for some time, I'm not sad in another game staying above GW2.

In a matter of fact, I hope that happens, so that ArenaNet can make GW2 better and give it's players more fun, more content and more fixes.

BTW, I see a lot of people saying other users don't agree with the results, accusing them of beeing GW2 fanboys without even knowing if they voted for other games or not. Get off your horses, many complainners don't believe Pirate101 won because it was completelly unexpected, considering all other games with big communities in here.

I didn't even participated in this vote because I was playing the game. And I guess many other users of this site were doing the same with their favourite games.

Pirate101 devs were really smart and they proved everyone that a good and strong community is one of mmo's biggest strengths, if not the biggest of them all!

I already copied all this info in a thread for my guild (referring your nickname of course) and, although we still have to try all this tips one by one to see how viable they are, we like them a lot. Although I don't think 1 or 2 things really work that well, that's a personal opinion and a matter of trying ingame.

I saw my friend playing the game and I have to say it seems to be a very good game. But once he showed me the end of the story and the final battle against Diablo, I was somehow shocked and asked him "Did you completed the story in 1 day?". With his answer "Yes", I lost my interest in it.

So I have a question: playing in harder modes will give you more story? or at least some parts of the story that he never saw? What about using other classes? Or is the story the same everytime you play it?

people staunchly defending everything about gw2 is reminding me of all those other fail mmorpgs out there. they all had the same fanboy crowd licking up any crap thrown at them and BAM the game tanks.

i was intent on prerodering 10th april and now i dont even know if i want to buy the game. i dont want to play a game full of people that will take any crap from the devs/publisher because i know in the long run the game will suck because criticisms will be drowned out with " WOW had the same problems on release", " you havent even played to max level", "go back to WOW" etc etc.

i dont know if im the only one that gets turned off game by fanboyism, there are probably more people out there so i think its best to take that into consideration and be a bit more welcoming and less aggresive/vile when someone criticises gw2 or questions its "greatness". i would like to see gw2 do well (more compeition=better games for us) but games wont do well if developers cannot hear the players complaints.

I understand what you mean, but have you even gone to Guild Wars 2 Guru? I mean, anytime there's a new feature or idea of the game that generates controversy there's a giant tsunami of fans claiming about it and lots of threads and post on how to make it better. The problem is that a lot of these fans just whine about everything, while some others protect the game at all costs, but that doesn't change the fact that the game has been seriously modified since we saw the first demo almost 2-3 years ago. A lot of it because of the fans whining.

Most devellopers never show their game, or just show 1 aspect of it that is the "new innovation" (and only one) they have, and they have all their fans supporting the game, untill it's released and it survives for like, 3 months.

Do you know why people think Guild Wars 2 will be different? Because ArenaNet devs have been changing the game according to players feedback, whether they are fans or not, whether they play mmorpgs or not. And those changes aren't things made in a rush, they are things that get through many different tests untill it satisfies them and the players. They go from little things like walking and eye colors to dramatic changes like the the sylvari. Fans don't support the game because it's god-like. they support the game because they know that if something changes, they will talk about it and ArenaNet devs will hear them. And if something isn't showed officially by ArenaNet, then it's not to concern much untill it is, because it will probably change untill then.

People are worried about guild hopping and loyalty but they don't see this option in another way.

You see, people think that changing the guild you represent is against the loyalty you have towards your guild. That happens in another mmorpgs because you can only represent one, and if you hide yourself from one of your guilds to be playing in another is kind of like you're cheating your wife, and then she finds out.

But I think this system gives the the opportunity to make that situation as something really good for both guilds. You can coordenate both guilds and have more communication and a better relationship between them for the best of the server community and reputation, and for more FUN.

Even if you are representing one of the Guilds, you will still be representing the other guilds because they will know who you are (in the guild roster), they will be able to contact you and you will still help them that way if you want to, without beeing afraid of them seeing you online.

That's not the only thing:

in WvW it gives much more coordination between Guilds and to claim Keeps.

In dungeons it lets players from different guilds to talk with each other and help each other, instead of relying to the members of your one-and-only guild.

Dynamic events will become even more epic with more players in the same spots, teams and squads that belong from different guilds.

PVP will have players from different guilds in more of the best PVP teams, which means having more guilds beeing well represented in PVP.

Personal story will be much easier if you have new friends from different guilds and they are in the same chapter as you, or they just want to know how your story is.

It's a system that gives Guilds from a server to have a chance in beeing more social and friendly for the best of the server they are at, in order to have a better experience ingame.

I just want to ask this about professions: Why does the Guardian lack a long-range combat when all the other professions have it? And why do spirit weapons have so few attacks and are active for only 15 seconds?

And I have another question about Beta Event Weekends: If I pre-purchase the game and play in Beta Event Weekends, Can I play with different computers, at different times, using the same account in the same Beta?

let me rephrase. while the combat in GW2 is dynamic in ways. it does not give ME that "feeling" of control that Tera brought me. When i play a different class in Tera i feel as if im playing an entirely different game. I dont feel like its rock paper scissors. I feel like I am alive in control of if i want to take damage to dish damage or completely avoid an attack altogether. I felt my location meant much more tactically then in GW2. This is how I FELT playing these games in comparison. I was playing gw2 beta and when tera came out i was like "omg this is fun". There are certainly a TON of elements gw2 does better. To me combat and control of battle seems to be winning my gaming hours these days. Not a game that is just trying ot cater to everything. Which is fine as well. Im not here hating on GW2. every thread i state my preferences of tera to gw2 is just brought on by people who most likely have not played either or both. These are one persons opinions not facts.

To the above. You can just hold down the mouse to attack normal combos. Though i catch myself spam clicking for sure hehe.

I will be buying both games. They are both unique and special. I certainly expect GW2 to outsell any recent game. Tera will have its market and many of us will enjoy the hell out of it.

So...GW2 beta...you weren't in it, and if you were, you just broke NDA, so you weren't in it.

As for me, my experience with both games is reletively equal...A demo on a convention show floor. My real first impression opinion of tera was that it was pretty fun, but not better than GW2 (which I had tried earlier that day). Also evident is that if you like the fact that GW2 is shaking things up where questing is concerned, and you don't like kill ten rats types of quests, tera is likely not for you.

Now, for my combat comparison. This really doesn't matter, as my knowledge of tera is incomplete and likely to stay that way. I can say that, rationally speaking, which game is better as a whole matters WAY more than which game's combat is more advanced than the other, as I can guess most people are going to look at both games and see an effort to improve combat in MMOs.

So, while it may matter to some of you more than others, only a minority of people will look at one core feature over everything else.

Actually, deziwright can say that he was in the GW2 beta but ONLY if that beta was the Press beta weekend. Was it? Which press do you belong to? You're forced to say which is it unless you want to brake the NDA or, of course, you're lying. So, grimm6th is probably right.

Besides, you can actually fight like in TERA, you just don't have the aim thing in center of the screen and you have to use the right button to move your vision. Of course, that's only if you want it to. Most people target their enemy and the attack goes directly at them, but in case you find someone really skilled you will probably change between both in different situations. For ex: against thiefs that use a lot of stealth skills.

Not having the aim in the center and the necessity of using the right button to move your vision are the consequences of having both different features turned into one.

Story mode = It's not that easy, but it's the easiest you can get xD. Also has a storyline shared by all story modes of all the Dungeons you can find.

Explorable mode = After you complete the Story mode you unlock this mode. You have up to 3 choices in each dungeon when you are in this mode, each choice will tell a story of it's own and have a completelly different challenge, but all of them are Rage Quit mode indeed xD.

You can't put Spirit Weapons and Burning in the same place as weapons in this situation.

Spirit Weapons are influenced by, at least, 2 Trait Lines. Burning is influenced by all of them, I think. You can only change them out of combat, but most Trait Lines influence other kinds of utility Skills and Conditions/Boons.

Some Guardian Weapons are only tied to one Trait Line. Why would you have the weapon skills you like the most in 2 different weapon sets if the Trait Lines clearly say that it's more efficient to change at least one of those weapons.

Example: I would like to use sword/shield and greathammer, but those can't be together if I want to have the best of each. I don't want the best of all weapons, just those that I consider my own playstyle = 3 weapons in 8 possible (outside water at least). Instead the Trait Lines are telling me the best and smallest change I have do is change my sword by mace or scepter. If I like more the sword/shield set and I want to have the Best of it, is better If I don't go with 2-hand-weapons. Or If want to go with the weapon sets I like the most, I can't use many points in the Virtue Line (That gives points to the Profession Attribute).

So, as you see, it's too restrictive. It's saying that the 2 weapon sets you want and the Trait Lines you want can't be the same in some situations, unless you want to be less effective than other players.

So.. why don't you just max out the two trait lines that "focus" on sword/shield and greathammer?

My mistake was that I could have +10 points to use after 2 max Trait Lines in the Scepter/Shield + Greathammer, but I had to give up on an additional bonus to one of the weapons in the other combinations (The only weapon that has 2 bonus).Then I realized, I was forgetting the 2nd bonus on one of the weapons in the Scepter/Shield + Greathammer combination, it didn't had it in the beguinning.

Things really are more balanced than I thought! At least in the Guardian!

I don't think people quite understand that GW2 is NOT going to really be a min/max "must top DPS charts" raid Grinder MMO.

You can't put Spirit Weapons and Burning in the same place as weapons in this situation.

Spirit Weapons are influenced by, at least, 2 Trait Lines. Burning is influenced by all of them, I think. You can only change them out of combat, but most Trait Lines influence other kinds of utility Skills and Conditions/Boons.

Some Guardian Weapons are only tied to one Trait Line. Why would you have the weapon skills you like the most in 2 different weapon sets if the Trait Lines clearly say that it's more efficient to change at least one of those weapons.

Example: I would like to use sword/shield and greathammer, but those can't be together if I want to have the best of each. I don't want the best of all weapons, just those that I consider my own playstyle = 3 weapons in 8 possible (outside water at least). Instead the Trait Lines are telling me the best and smallest change I have do is change my sword by mace or scepter. If I like more the sword/shield set and I want to have the Best of it, is better If I don't go with 2-hand-weapons. Or If want to go with the weapon sets I like the most, I can't use many points in the Virtue Line (That gives points to the Profession Attribute).

So, as you see, it's too restrictive. It's saying that the 2 weapon sets you want and the Trait Lines you want can't be the same in some situations, unless you want to be less effective than other players.

Arms tree is clearly tied to swords, giving increased crit chance to them. Strength is tied to AXES. You are clearly limited in your choice of playstyle. You cannot effectively be an Axe-wielding warrior while picking traits from other stinking trees. This IS awful.

What gave you that impression?

Well, in case of the Warrior Pilnkplonk is wrong. BUT I think he has a point in some of the other professions. At least in the Guardian Traits, you can clearly see that some of the weapons are influenced by only one of the Trait Lines. Shield is by the Valor Traits, Sword and Spear only by Radiance Traits.

In case of the Elementalist, since this profession doesn't swap weapons anymore, tying element attunements to Trait Lines is not so good of an idea too. WE already see many people beeing misleaded by the same name between them and the influence each Line has on one and only attunement. only the Line of Arcane Power will influence them all.

So, It's true that this system might make some players: 1- never want to change weapons because they like the Traits they have; or 2- never wanting to re-spec Trait Lines because they like the Weapons they have. Those are choices that are too restrictive.

The best possible solution is giving different effects to all weapons when they are in different Trait Lines. The same thing to the Elementalist element attunements. I think they have to rethink, or add, more Major Traits in each Trait Line. But that's it. They have a good system IMHO.